Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Bank IV Olathe v. Capitol Fed'l Savings & Loan Ass'n

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided March 20, 1992No. 66,420Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partAbbott, J.

I have no quarrel with the law or reasoning of the majority except as set forth in this dissent. I would point out that most of the authority cited by the majority deals with checks. Clearly, a bank could not function if, in check transactions, the bank was required to do more than the majority opinion requires.

*557My dissent is simple. In my opinion, the trial judge’s grant of summary judgment was premature because I would adopt an additional requirement: If a transaction dependent upon a durable power of attorney is more than a routine transaction and if an officer of the bank is involved…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Renzi v. AleszczykAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1974
  2. Hubbard v. Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API